Supreme Court to consider challenge to federal bump stock ban

Great, well informed post. Thank you.

 

Yeah, well sure. That makes sense. Just like all the laws in the U.S. right? Actually, it's a bullshit excuse from the "don't take my guns!" crowd. Remember this sentiment the next time ya jaywalk, speed, violate a website's terms of service, infringe upon copyright law, play poker for $ at home, or decline to license your dog.

 

It sounds to me that you are saying that because you don't like the jaywalking, speeding, terms of service, copyright, poker playing or dog licensing laws it is OK to ignore them?

 

Imagine thinking your rights are being infringed upon by not being able to own one of these things. Shithole country gonna shithole country.

 

I’m not sure what any of that has to do with his point.

No one’s response here has been “that shouldn’t be illegal,” it’s that there’s a fairly specific statutory definition of what constitutes a machinegun and based on the plain language of that definition bumpstocks don’t fall within it. And, that being the case, the way you make them illegal is for Congress to change the law, not for the agency to say “these should be illegal, so we’re just going to pretend they fall within the statutory definition even though everyone (including us) has recognized that they don’t.”

 

This is an agency deference case, not a Second Amendment one. As noted above, the argument is that we can’t just ignore what the statute actually defines a machinegun as because President Trump thought bumpstocks should be illegal and told DOJ to come up with some argument that they already are.

 

Find the word mechanical in the definition. You're adding words you want to be in there.

You wouldn't need the rule of lenity there. They'd rule it an ultra vires act using traditional tools of statutory interpretation. You're discussing the intersection of Chevron and the rule of lenity. I see no reason why we'd use the rule of lenity when the regulation is reasonable and provides fair notice.

 

As are you.

The statutory definition of a machinegun turns on firing with a “function of the trigger,” and the trigger is separately functioning for every shot a bumpstock equipped gun is firing. If the trigger is just held back, it will fire once and either jam or just return to battery and wait - it has to be released for the gun to fire again, the bumpstock just puts your finger in a position where, if you are appropriately exerting force elsewhere on the gun, it is difficult not to release the trigger.

You’re defining a machinegun based on what force the shooter is applying to the trigger, when the definition is based solely on what the trigger, not the shooter, is doing.

 

Wrong. I'm saying it's ambiguous. Function of the trigger could mean pull of the trigger. It could also mean the definition you're giving it.

 

Fair enough. I think the assertion that “function of the trigger” actually means “movement of the trigger finger” is borderline frivolous, but it’s at least an argument.

(And that’s what interpreting the definition that way does - with a bumpstock the trigger is being pulled every time it fires a shot, it’s just being pulled by a stationary finger.)

IMO the better argument for that kind of interpretation is actually probably the assertion that, with a bumpstock, the trigger on the gun ceases to actually be “the trigger” and instead becomes part of a sear, while the foregrip becomes “the trigger.” You could at least make an argument that makes some sense with respect to the function of the gun if you went that route. Of course ATF didn’t ultimately make that argument because they knew everyone would look at them sideways if they started trying to explain how the trigger isn’t actually the trigger, instead the stationary handguard is.

 

The definition “we” are giving it with regard to bump stocks (which fire upon a pull as opposed to a release of the trigger) is a pull of the trigger, the same understanding of what “function of the trigger” has meant since the NFA was passed in 1934 and the same one that has been used by the ATF until they decided it wasn’t under the direction of the trump administration. Defining a bump stock as a machine gun is incompatible with defining “function of the trigger” as “pull of the trigger” because you must pull the trigger with your finger once for each shot fired by a semi auto firearm equipped with a bump stock thereby rendering it not a machine gun under the plain language of the statute

 

Original public meaning asks what the public would understand the statute to mean at the time of its enactment. If you asked a bunch of random people on the street at the time the statute was enacted what "single function of the trigger" means in a provision defining what a "machinegun" is, how many do you think would say that it means something along the lines of if you hold down the trigger, the gun will keep firing?

People tried to invent a way around the ban on machineguns. The ATF responded to it. And y'all want to argue form over substance. You want the statute to be defined in hyper-technical terms because the common-sense understanding is inconvenient to your objectives (preventing the ATF from regulating a harmful device).

 

Wrong. You don't need to manually pull the trigger for each shot. You pull it once, leave your finger in place, and the gun continues firing, just like an automatic weapon. You can play games and talk in circles, but you aren't going to pull the wool over our eyes.

 

That’s a fantastic definition. A bumpstock doesn’t meet it.

That’s what we’re trying to tell you.

The entire concept of how a bumpstock works is that it makes it really hard to hold the trigger down. If you succeed in doing so, it will fire a single shot and either return to battery or jam (depending on the timing of the bolt).

 

You pull the trigger, you hold your finger in place, and the gun keeps firing. Are you saying that's not the case?

 

See what you did there? You took the trigger back out of the definition.

But as a purely technical matter, no, on it’s own it will not continue firing absent other inputs (pushing the foregrip back forward).

The reason ATF consistently said it wasn’t a machinegun previously is, at least in part, because their “technical test” was based on exactly that common understanding of what a machinegun is: zip-tie the trigger back and see what happens. In the case of a bumpstock equipped gun (like semi-automatics generally), the answer is it fires a single shot and then nothing.

 

The trigger is still in the definition. Agencies are allowed to change their minds and issue new guidance.

 

It makes the definition nonsensical to define a function of the trigger in that manner because, if that’s truly the definition, you can fire every functional gun in existence at least once without pulling the trigger at all.

How? Just stick your finger through the trigger guard and push the gun forward. That’s literally the entire idea behind how a bumpstock works - your support hand is moving the gun back forward every time it recoils, which most people can do faster than moving their index finger back and forth.

 

But just to be clear, even though the utility of these devices is perfectly replaceable by mundane alternatives like belt loops, it is imperative that they remain available.

Who occupies that market? People without the ability to figure out belt loops?

And also, belt loops are next. Which isn’t really a loss for bump stock users, since belt loops aren’t a realistic option for them. It’s non-bump-stock buyers who also don’t roll with the draw string.

Or are draw strings also on the block?

It seems like if you wanted to keep people from being able to take out the whole Jason Aldean concert in a few minutes, you’d just outlaw all bottoms’ support except Velcro. Then you’re just back to a standard argument about separation of hook and loop.

I really hope that the guy who recently fabricated a set of facts out of thin air for a plaintiff in order to issue the predetermined decision per the spirit of that invented history writes this one to tell us how absolute fealty to the most technically rigid consideration of the definition of a couple of words is critical to proper jurisprudence.